The Republican Thread

[kapkomet]

Well, the NYT disagrees with you. They believe the speech (and the editorial which preceded it) contained new info.

 

Personally, I don't disagree with you. I didn't find anything in the editorial that I didn't expect to hear.

 

But that's a different argument than the one bmags has been making. The only thing I'm saying is that he has a valid point. A newspaper should be allowed to demand the same standards of any candidate editorial. If you want to argue how well it implemented those standards, that's fine, and I don't think I'd say much against you. The only reason I said anything here is that I think most of the replies to bmags were misrepresenting one of his main points.

 

Btw, I think bmags would disagree with me about how new the editorial was, so take this as jmo.

I understand and respect that opinion.

 

[southsider2k5]

Well, the NYT disagrees with you. They believe the speech (and the editorial which preceded it) contained new info.

 

Personally, I don't disagree with you. I didn't find anything in the editorial that I didn't expect to hear.

 

But that's a different argument than the one bmags has been making. The only thing I'm saying is that he has a valid point. A newspaper should be allowed to demand the same standards of any candidate editorial. If you want to argue how well it implemented those standards, that's fine, and I don't think I'd say much against you. The only reason I said anything here is that I think most of the replies to bmags were misrepresenting one of his main points.

 

Btw, I think bmags would disagree with me about how new the editorial was, so take this as jmo.

 

I don't think anyone has said the NYT shouldn't be able to do what they are doing. It seems that most of the arguements are that they shouldn't have done it, because it only fuels the bias fires. It makes them look like they are choosing sides.

[Balta1701]

I don't think anyone has said the NYT shouldn't be able to do what they are doing. It seems that most of the arguements are that they shouldn't have done it, because it only fuels the bias fires. It makes them look like they are choosing sides.

Which is, I think, Tex's point in a nutshell. If the NYT Does anything that might remotely anger the right, it gets accused of bias, regardless of the reasoning behind it.

[southsider2k5]

Which is, I think, Tex's point in a nutshell. If the NYT Does anything that might remotely anger the right, it gets accused of bias, regardless of the reasoning behind it.

 

Because I never hear anything about bias at Fox News or anything... Please.

[NorthSideSox72]

Which is, I think, Tex's point in a nutshell. If the NYT Does anything that might remotely anger the right, it gets accused of bias, regardless of the reasoning behind it.

In this case, they did something that outright screamed bias. This is not just "angering" the right, like say, posting an article that the right doesn't like. This is the NYT posting an Op-Ed piece by Obama stating his war stance, and then rejecting McCain's response.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Because I never hear anything about bias at Fox News or anything... Please.

Key difference there, though. NYT's editorial board and content are biased, their news is generally not. Fox News doesn't have an unbiased element anywhere in its content.

 

[southsider2k5]

Key difference there, though. NYT's editorial board and content are biased, their news is generally not. Fox News doesn't have an unbiased element anywhere in its content.

 

I don't buy that for a second. The NYT is every bit to the left as Fox News is to the right. As a matter of a fact, its why I pretty much ignore both of them when it comes to anything connected to politics.

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't buy that for a second. The NYT is every bit to the left as Fox News is to the right. As a matter of a fact, its why I pretty much ignore both of them when it comes to anything connected to politics.

I'll just have to disagree.

 

[mr_genius]

The New York Times isn't an unbiased news source , and that is obvious. There really is no point arguing with people who are determined to argue that the NYT is unbiased, kind of like a FOX news defender who claims their broadcasts aren't biased.

Edited July 22, 2008 by mr_genius

[mr_genius]

I don't buy that for a second. The NYT is every bit to the left as Fox News is to the right. As a matter of a fact, its why I pretty much ignore both of them when it comes to anything connected to politics.

 

I agree, the NYT news reporting is as far left as FOX is right. But I do like to get news from different points of view, as a consumer of news I am just aware of biased reporting and take it for what it is.

[NorthSideSox72]

The New York Times isn't a respectable news source, and that is obvious. There really is no point arguing with people who are determined to argue that the NYT is unbiased, kind of like a FOX news defender who claims their broadcasts aren't biased. Neither knows what they are talking about.

Note that I didn't say the NYT was unbiased. I said that, specifically, their news journalism (not editorial or anything else) is good, and I will say they are far less biased than what you get on Fox. If you read the actual news items in the NYT, compared to most other papers, they are simply better and less biased than others. That gets overshadowed by other aspects of the paper.

 

But I would not call the NYT unbiased. Just less biased, and only in the news room.

 

[mr_genius]

Note that I didn't say the NYT was unbiased. I said that, specifically, their news journalism (not editorial or anything else) is good, and I will say they are far less biased than what you get on Fox. If you read the actual news items in the NYT, compared to most other papers, they are simply better and less biased than others. That gets overshadowed by other aspects of the paper.

 

But I would not call the NYT unbiased. Just less biased, and only in the news room.

 

Their news room is also very biased. Their coverage, what stories they give the most print, are usually part of a pro-Democrat narrative.

[Balta1701]

Just to see if I can make anyone's head explode...you know...if there was a fairness doctrine in the law, covering newspapers, I think that would have required the NYT to print that piece no matter what McCain said in it.

[mr_genius]

Just to see if I can make anyone's head explode...you know...if there was a fairness doctrine in the law, covering newspapers, I think that would have required the NYT to print that piece no matter what McCain said in it.

 

That would just make things worse. I'm fine with a liberal New York Times, they can print whatever they want, and I am free to critique their publications.

 

 

 

[Texsox]

The bias seems to be they didn't want to reprint the same thing McCain has already been saying and has been printed. Obama plowed some new ground and was printed. It seems like they made the same offer to McCain, plow some new ground and we'll run it, and he refused. I think McCain calculated the impact of both courses and went with the media bias angle, which plays so well to his base.

 

How many time should a newspaper print the same statements from the same candidate?

[Balta1701]

Since we're still on the subject...here's the bullet point comparison version of the 2 articles (link to left leaning blog alert since this is the RNC thread).

It has 12 paragraphs — 11 of which attack Obama directly. Obama’s piece focused on Obama’s vision for a sensible U.S. policy towards Iraq. McCain’s submission was a hit-job, focused exclusively on attacking Obama. While Obama’s op-ed mentioned McCain three times, McCain’s op-ed mentioned Obama 10 times by name, and 17 times through pronouns.

[mr_genius]

The bias seems to be they didn't want to reprint the same thing McCain has already been saying and has been printed. Obama plowed some new ground and was printed. It seems like they made the same offer to McCain, plow some new ground and we'll run it, and he refused. I think McCain calculated the impact of both courses and went with the media bias angle, which plays so well to his base.

 

How many time should a newspaper print the same statements from the same candidate?

 

Obama didn't really say anything new, but he did say things the Times agrees with, therefore they printed it. McCain didn't write what they wanted to hear, so they didn't print.

 

Who cares though? It's a liberal paper and they can print whatever they want. But we can laugh at them when they claim to be unbiased news source.

Edited July 22, 2008 by mr_genius

[bmags]

people don't want objective news. Everyone conservative wants a cheering section for conservative viewpoints. Every liberal in here wants the cheering section for the progressive viewpoints. And neither one of us see's the news as being objective or on our side. Isn't that the funny part, that no one is right. And everyone is losing. News is worse now, and it is worse for no reasons that contain liberal or conservative. They're delusional grasp to maintain 20% profits has them cutting content and creates awful news. There isn't money to do long term investigations and to have your own data collecting. Luckily Lexis/Nexis is helping many make due.

 

In reality, news is going to be progressive. They need to cover the uncovered, the less fortuned, and the corrupt. And great stories cover everything, and give sympathy to the unsympathetic. That's the history of news since the penny print. That has nothing to do with politics. And politics are what everyone is talking about. You can't put out a positive article on Obama without being in awe of him, you can't put out a negative article on Obama without being a republican hit job. And the result is news that just covers reactions. Everyone covers the media, and no one claims to be the media. The articles talk about how what a candidate says will be perceived by a group of people, and not how what a candidate will affect a group of people. Talking about what a candidates policies will actually do will lead to claims of bias.

 

But the NY Times news is biased. You don't need proof. It's been said. And if it's been said it's true. That's news in 2008. The NY Times has had an awful decade. Judy Miller's mouth piece for the Iraq war, falling off of investigative reporting and foreign affairs, and the McCain innuendo story in Feb. (a pretty direct affect of the price restrictions of a newspaper). (Edit: add their despicable coverage of Duke Lacrosse) I think all of those I can attribute to something tangible (except lacrosse). I think they've picked up pretty well. For instance, this weekend, they resisted printing Maliki's Obama stance right away because it was merely hinted(by CentCom) that it was a misquote, mistranslation. They held off and got their own translation and found it was accurate. While initially criticized by left blogs, they affirmed for everyone that this was an undeniable quote by Maliki. They've done excellent stories about McCain and his son, McCain and his career, Obama and his mother, Obama and his neighborhood organizer years, McCain v. Obama taxplan.

 

But that doesn't matter, because the NY Times is liberal because it is said they are. And make no mistake about it, it is because of their editorial staff. Just like it is said the Tribune is conservative because of their editorial staff. The editorial staff and news staff doesn't even see each other much, if at all, during the day. The WSJ, completely conservative editorial staff, has had great coverage of the presidential candidates. There are differences, If you were to take 1000 papers you'd find probably find them a few articles difference in pos./neg. coverage of candidates, but not enough to be significant. Not enough to skew a regular reader's minds.

 

And that's the problem with cable news, which probably defines, whether we like it our not, how we think of the media covering elections. And cable news is all editorial. There's no analysis, they just have surrogate one and surrogate two. And youtube vid #1 and youtube vid #2. And then cut to a video of a helicopter crash in Boomer, Montana that has no value to democracy.

 

So this media bias is stupid. This is not an example of media bias. This is the news we've all created. So enjoy it. And memo to McCain, don't mistake less coverage with unfavorable coverage. If you were covered as much as Obama, you'd be in more trouble than you already are.

 

And Jackie Hayes, no I don't think Obama came out with anything new. It was more nuanced and better written. The border problems and explanations of Shia differences in the region were educational and heighted political dialogue. McCains was more general. He could've said the same thing in a better way and it would've ran. Framing is everything. He should just get better writers.

Edited July 22, 2008 by bmags

[mr_genius]

people don't want objective news. Everyone conservative wants a cheering section for conservative viewpoints. Every liberal in here wants the cheering section for the progressive viewpoints. And neither one of us see's the news as being objective or on our side. Isn't that the funny part, that no one is right. And everyone is losing. News is worse now, and it is worse for no reasons that contain liberal or conservative. They're delusional grasp to maintain 20% profits has them cutting content and creates awful news. There isn't money to do long term investigations and to have your own data collecting. Luckily Lexis/Nexis is helping many make due.

 

Unbiased news may sell, but the MSM isn't doing it right now so it won't reach the masses. The problem the left wing press is facing, with losing viewers or readers, is that there is too much competition for pro-Democrat news. Look at FOX, they don't even have a good presentation (CNN nad MSNBC are better in this category) but they are the only pro-GOP news on television; they destroy in the ratings.

 

In reality, news is going to be progressive. They need to cover the uncovered, the less fortuned, and the corrupt. And great stories cover everything, and give sympathy to the unsympathetic. That's the history of news since the penny print. That has nothing to do with politics. And politics are what everyone is talking about. You can't put out a positive article on Obama without being in awe of him, you can't put out a negative article on Obama without being a republican hit job. And the result is news that just covers reactions. Everyone covers the media, and no one claims to be the media. The articles talk about how what a candidate says will be perceived by a group of people, and not how what a candidate will affect a group of people. Talking about what a candidates policies will actually do will lead to claims of bias.

 

I disagree with your opening statement here; the news has not always been what you are calling 'progressive'. The American news media has long history of being for freedoms, against authoritarianism, for self determination, living the American dream, and individualism; all of which many 'progressives' view as dangerous. The news can cover issues without bias, but stories that the Times covers directly coincides with whatever the Democrat party is currently pushing.

 

But the NY Times news is biased. You don't need proof. It's been said. And if it's been said it's true. That's news in 2008. The NY Times has had an awful decade. Judy Miller's mouth piece for the Iraq war, falling off of investigative reporting and foreign affairs, and the McCain innuendo story in Feb. (a pretty direct affect of the price restrictions of a newspaper). (Edit: add their despicable coverage of Duke Lacrosse) I think all of those I can attribute to something tangible (except lacrosse). I think they've picked up pretty well. For instance, this weekend, they resisted printing Maliki's Obama stance right away because it was merely hinted(by CentCom) that it was a misquote, mistranslation. They held off and got their own translation and found it was accurate. While initially criticized by left blogs, they affirmed for everyone that this was an undeniable quote by Maliki. They've done excellent stories about McCain and his son, McCain and his career, Obama and his mother, Obama and his neighborhood organizer years, McCain v. Obama taxplan.

 

Proof? The proof is in each days paper and no matter what they do many will never see the paper that supports their political party as biased. Oh and the Iraq war piece? Yea, that was back when the majority of Dems supported the Iraq war, when the Dems turned so did the NYT. Go figure.

 

 

And that's the problem with cable news, which probably defines, whether we like it our not, how we think of the media covering elections. And cable news is all editorial. There's no analysis, they just have surrogate one and surrogate two. And youtube vid #1 and youtube vid #2. And then cut to a video of a helicopter crash in Boomer, Montana that has no value to democracy.

 

The dumbing down of news is not something only on cable. Most of the MSM stories are really dumb.

 

So this media bias is stupid. This is not an example of media bias. This is the news we've all created. So enjoy it. And memo to McCain, don't mistake less coverage with unfavorable coverage. If you were covered as much as Obama, you'd be in more trouble than you already are.

 

Obama gets glowing coverage by the MSM, broadcasts are basically a Obama campaign ad. This is a big advantage for him, and he knows it.

Edited July 22, 2008 by mr_genius

[lostfan]

Unbiased news may sell, but the MSM isn't doing it right now so it won't reach the masses. The problem the left wing press is facing, with losing viewers or readers, is that there is too much competition for pro-Democrat news. Look at FOX, they don't even have a good presentation (CNN nad MSNBC are better in this category) but they are the only pro-GOP news on television; they destroy in the ratings.

Hasn't Fox been slipping in the ratings lately?

[NorthSideSox72]

people don't want objective news.

Not true for all.

 

[mr_genius]

Hasn't Fox been slipping in the ratings lately?

 

Overall they still easily beat CNN and MSNBC. During off-times on the weekend CNN seems to pick up steam.

 

Here's some ratings stats.

 

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/default.asp

Edited July 22, 2008 by mr_genius

[bmags]

Unbiased news may sell, but the MSM isn't doing it right now so it won't reach the masses. The problem the left wing press is facing, with losing viewers or readers, is that there is too much competition for pro-Democrat news. Look at FOX, they don't even have a good presentation (CNN nad MSNBC are better in this category) but they are the only pro-GOP news on television; they destroy in the ratings.

 

 

 

I disagree with your opening statement here; the news has not always been what you are calling 'progressive'. The American news media has long history of being for freedoms, against authoritarianism, for self determination, living the American dream, and individualism; all of which many 'progressives' view as dangerous. The news can cover issues without bias, but stories that the Times covers directly coincides with whatever the Democrat party is currently pushing.

 

 

 

Proof? Well, there is no point here arguing, as the paper is blatantly liberal. The proof is in each days paper and no matter what they do many will never see the paper that supports their political party as biased. Oh and the Iraq war piece? Yea, that was back when the majority of Dems supported the Iraq war, when the Dems turned so did the NYT. Go figure.

 

 

 

 

The dumbing down of news is not something only on cable. Most of the MSM stories are really dumb.

 

Obama gets glowing coverage by the MSM, broadcasts are basically a Obama campaign ad. This is a big advantage for him, and he knows it.

 

then go head, read the nytimes everyday and send me what articles you deem to be liberal and the reasons why, and you have to say whether those liberal views are qualified by the article.

 

As for you last statement, I whole-heartedly agree that Obama has had much more press. I can't help but laugh at your assertion. If McCain got half of the critical coverage of Obama and then added on 50% more of the positive coverage he already gets, he'd be in deep s***.

 

"I disagree with your opening statement here; the news has not always been what you are calling 'progressive'. The American news media has long history of being for freedoms, against authoritarianism, for self determination, living the American dream, and individualism; all of which many 'progressives' view as dangerous. The news can cover issues without bias, but stories that the Times covers directly coincides with whatever the Democrat party is currently pushing.

"

 

The american news has moved with the american people on all of these. It's made up of the people. But the themes I've mentioned have been and continue to be deeply involved in journalism worldwide.

[bmags]

Not true for all.

 

far more true than you realize.

 

And I think the #1 reason fox wins is format. They pumped their lineup with vitalic, dynamic personalities, thin on news. I don't need another long post to say what's dangerous about fox news has nothing to do with ideology, but of shallow content. They have only like 3 hours of the day devoted to a news hour.

[lostfan]

Overall they still easily beat CNN and MSNBC. During off-times on the weekend CNN seems to pick up steam.

 

Here's some ratings stats.

 

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/default.asp

They're still in the lead, I know... I just thought they were trending downward.